Gravity Observation

[libertypirate]

So I have come to a very interesting observation I would like to share...

If an object is suspended above the earth lets say sitting atop a building, our perception that the object is in a state of rest or having potential is flawed, the object has all the motion of the earth. We generally perceive an objects motion within the earth’s motion. However, if a parent objects motion has no effect on the motion of something within then a person walking up and down a moving train would feel no directional difference.

The earth is an object with a state of motion as we all know. Each of its distinctive paths are unique however they are all simultaneously the motion of the earth.

If the law of conservation of energy is correct then when an object suspended above the earth is released; does it measure acceleration? The question does not take into consideration all the perspectives from which I could make the observation of an objects motion.

From the objects perspective it looses the motion it had before regaining it upon surface collision. Watching the object from the earth’s perspective the object accelerates and then looses that acceleration into the earth.

If an object is in motion with the earth then released... Does it loose the Earths motion before the earth runs into it? or, Does it accelerate by still some unexplained energy we call gravity?

There need not be any additional source of force if the object is observed to be loosing the motion it once had. To measure acceleration, an object would require more motion then before it was released. Additional motion or acceleration would result in object separation not collision.

If you were to toss an object on which sat an ant would you consider the ant at rest although the object you tossed was not?

http://observablesonly.blogspot.com/2008/07/gravity.html

Wayne

[Xipe Totec]

1. when an object suspended above the earth is released,

it stops measuring acceleration.

It was being accelerated before then.

[jeff30997]

2. K&R

Thanks for the Neurons stimulation. :)

[gcomeau]

3. Couple thoughts...

If an object is suspended above the earth lets say sitting atop a building, our perception that the object is in a state of rest or having potential is flawed, the object has all the motion of the earth. We generally perceive an objects motion within the earth’s motion. However, if a parent objects motion has no effect on the motion of something within then a person walking up and down a moving train would feel no directional difference.

The earth is an object with a state of motion as we all know. Each of its distinctive paths are unique however they are all simultaneously the motion of the earth.

1. Motion is always measured within relative frames of reference. For terrestrial objects that frame of reference is almost always "relative to the earth" for the sake of convenience and utility. We could measure it relative to the sun, in which case the earth's orbital motion would be factored in... or relative to galactic center, and factor in the rate at which the entire solar system is hurtling through a galactic orbit... or relative to a galaxy on the other side of the observable universe and add in the rate of expansion of the galaxies to the equation... but there wouldn't be much practical point to doing any of those things.

2. When it comes to gravity motion isn't what we're worried about, acceleration is. Going to that train example (not a gravity issue, but whatever), if the train isn't accelerating then a person walking up or down the train doesn't feel a directional difference and it doesn't matter how fast the train is moving or in what direction.

I would comment on the rest, but I cannot decipher what it is you mean by "losing motion" in the remaining comments.

[BioDan]

4. Also remember

When you drop an object, it is being pulled towards the Earth, and the Earth is being pulled towards it. They both accelerate towards each other, just an immeasurable amount with respect to the Earth.

[libertypirate]

6. Is there a pull or do the objects share most of the same motion

We can measure resistance between two moving objects as well we know that two objects of similar states show attraction. Is the attraction because they share state or because of some force yet to be described?

Besides there is no energy known which translates through all matter the exact same.

[caraher]

7. No mystery.

Working within Newtonian physics, we simply apply Newton's law of gravitation and his laws of motion. Let's idealize to a situation where there are just two bodies, the Earth and, say, and just-released apple, initially at rest with respect to one another. We probably would also approximate Earth as a spherically-symmetry body and treat the apple as a "point" object since it's so much smaller than Earth, but these details only affect the calculation of the gravitational force, and in any event the suggested idealizations are more than adequate for most purposes.

First, recall (or look up) Newton's Third Law of Motion. Yes, there is a pull (read: force), and what Newton's Third Law says is that the force Earth exerts on the apple has the (1) same magnitude (or "amount" or strength) and (2) opposite direction compared to the force the apple exerts on Earth. (This will be true for every force, not just gravity - if object A exerts force F on object B, object B exerts force -F on object A.)

This is counterintuitive for most people, and is discussed in detail in every book on elementary physics if you'd like to learn more.

Now the difference is how these equal-strength forces affect the motion of each body. Newton's second law of motion provides the link. Usually written "F=ma" where F is the force, m is the mass of the object subject to the force and a is the resulting acceleration, it should be clear that if F is the same for both Earth and an apple, they both accelerate - but the apple by an amount greater than Earth in the same proportion by which Earth is more massive.

Every time you jump, Earth accelerates you upward AND you accelerate Earth "down." But the latter acceleration is so tiny it's undetectable.

[caraher]

8. addendum

My previous post assumes Newtonian physics. Gravity is an unusual phenomena in ways you're probably not yet able to fully appreciate, and the differences between gravity and other "forces" are the subject of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Taking that theory into account would change some of the details of how we talk about what "really happens;" but it's clear that what you're grappling with is much more fundamental concepts of kinematics and dynamics...

[libertypirate]

9. Ah lessons...

I understand quite well what Newton assumes in his definition of Gravity. What I don't understand is the oblivious desire to peer at the problem through an old set of facts and Newton’s old reality.

I think I was 10 years old when I first read about everything above and knew right away that something was not logical with that definition.

All objects have the entire state motion as the object they move with. Newton and so do you perceive an object upon the earth’s surface as having potential, not the object having all the motion of the earth. You ever wonder why gravity interacts with everything identically when no other energy has such common effect?

Which object has a greater state of motion, the one with more mass or the one with less? We recognize the change in motion; however we come from differing perspectives. So is it gaining new motion or loosing old motion? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed...

If you were to toss an object on which resided an ant would you consider the ant at rest although the object you tossed was not?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. It doesn't appear you understand much about Newton at all.

"All objects have the entire state motion as the object they move with. Newton and so do you perceive an object upon the earth’s surface as having potential, not the object having all the motion of the earth."

And?

"You ever wonder why gravity interacts with everything identically when no other energy has such common effect?"

I'd challenge this claim, but what does it have to do with rotational motion in a different reference frame?

"Which object has a greater state of motion, the one with more mass or the one with less?"

A semi truck at 55 mph and a motor cycle at 55 mph both have the same "state of motion." 55 mph.

"So is it gaining new motion or loosing old motion?"

An object falling off a building starts with no motion, gains motion, then more motion, then looses all motion rather catastrophically when it hits the ground. The kinetic energy it hits the ground with is equal to the amount of potential energy it when it was up at the top of the building.

Unless you're talking about the motion the object has as it rotates around the universe. In which case it gains or loses no motion, no energy, except that in the fall itself.

[caraher]

5. I don't understand - what's the observation?

I'm sorry if I've missed something because of the ways you describe the situation(s), but it seems like what you're noticing may be basically just the reasons kinematics and mechanics have developed technical language and mathematical definitions - in other words, your observation may be more about inadequacies of everyday language in describing motion scientifically.

A nutshell version of a "modern" (i.e. Newtonian) description of motion would begin by noting that "motion" - more specifically, position, velocity and acceleration - is always measured relative to some "reference frame." What is considered "at rest" or not is a purely conventional choice of no fundamental significance.

Energy has its own rigorous definition, which is different from that of force or momentum.

There are many wrinkles that come into play when you look at relative speeds approaching 300,000,000 m/s (Einstein's special relativity) or consider accelerated reference frames (Earth's surface may or may not be treated as an example of one, depending on the situation analyzed and the precision required).

I recommend you take an introductory physics course if possible, where all this will be explained quite carefully (even if you've taken one before) and/or read any good introductory physics book. You'll probably figure out answers to your questions and run across others you haven't previously thought of!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. I've no idea what you're talking about.

"If an object is suspended above the earth lets say sitting atop a building, our perception that the object is in a state of rest or having potential is flawed, the object has all the motion of the earth."

Relative to the ground, the building, etc. the object has no motion. Since it's all moving within the same reference frame, we can discount all other motion.

"If the law of conservation of energy is correct then when an object suspended above the earth is released; does it measure acceleration?"

Unless the object is an accelerometer, it does not measure acceleration. It does, however, undergoe acceleration. 9.8 m/s^2 discounting air resistance.

"From the objects perspective it looses the motion it had before regaining it upon surface collision."

You're talking about the motion due to rotation of the earth, revolution, etc.? No, it still has that motion thanks to inertia. Otherwise it'd be slinging eastwards at a thousand miles an hour.

"If an object is in motion with the earth then released... Does it loose the Earths motion before the earth runs into it? or, Does it accelerate by still some unexplained energy we call gravity?"

Please rephrase this question in a grammatically correct form.

"If you were to toss an object on which sat an ant would you consider the ant at rest although the object you tossed was not?"

Relative to the object the ant's sitting on it's at rest. To everything else it's in motion.

[libertypirate]

11. Absolutely an object has inertia of it's parent....

Is gravity the effect on an object when it looses the motion it once had, until it runs into the motion it once had?

Your assuming that your frame of reference is the only valid one which to observe motion. And that only observing motion from a primary perspective is applicable to any measurement of a relative phenomena. Do you realize how illogical that is?

As well you are assuming that an objects energy state in relation to two objects moving must always be described as more than the prevailing perspective; thus assuming the object is accelerating.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. An object has inertia period.

The idea of an object's parent is irrelevant.

"Is gravity the effect on an object when it looses the motion it once had, until it runs into the motion it once had?"

Gravity is acting upon the object at all times. Before it falls, while it's falling, and after it lands.

"Your assuming that your frame of reference is the only valid one which to observe motion."

Where are you getting that idea? All reference frames are equally valid.

"And that only observing motion from a primary perspective is applicable to any measurement of a relative phenomena. Do you realize how illogical that is?"

Illogical? You're not even making any sense.

"As well you are assuming that an objects energy state in relation to two objects moving must always be described as more than the prevailing perspective; thus assuming the object is accelerating."

Your object is going to have kinetic energy due to its rotation and revolution through the universe, but that energy is irrelevant when it simply comes to falling down.

[caraher]

14. Ordinarily I refrain from picking at language errors, but I'm "loosing" my mind here

"Loosing" means setting free, as in, "loose the hounds"

"Losing" is the word you're groping for repeatedly, the one that means to experience a loss.

There's really not much to discuss in terms of physics, as your claim to have understood and rejected ordinary mechanics is unsupported by anything you've said in attempting to convey your observation, let alone debunk conventional physics. You might consider this proclamation arrogant on my part, but any such arrogance pales compared to your airy dismissal of work that has withstood centuries of intense scrutiny on the part of scientists far more intelligent than either of us.

I'll be happy to consider your thoughts further once you've established that you can "speak physics" in a comprehensible, consistent way. At best you've got some observations concerning the English language, not physics.

[libertypirate]

15. I apologize for the use of the wrong word.

Kids books are killing me...

How can you be sure that the objects motion is due to an acceleration and not deceleration?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing.

It simply depends on the reference frame.

Acceleration is a change in motion, not simply the existence of motion.

[Realityhack]

17. I think you should take a night school class in pysics if you can fine one.

I think you would enjoy it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. And perhaps a minor in spelling

It's difficult to take anyone seriously who cannot spell well.